Cowardly, Underhanded and Dishonest.

Team Voice has put the question to former DCO and Senior Investigating Officer Lenny Harper that he believes Deputy Sean Power, along with Senator's Perchard and Shenton, are too cowardly, underhanded and dishonest to admit they are inferring.

They appear to be inferring that he has had improper dealings with the News of The World but in reality they are probably just trying to further smear the name of Mr. Harper.........but why would they want to do that?

Firstly let's just have a quick look at some of the antics of these three individuals and how well placed they are to question ANYBODY'S integrity or morality.

Deputy Sean Power stole a fellow States Member's personal e-mail correspondence scanned it, passed it on to at least one other third party where it subsequently was published on the internet. It's difficult to determine what is the most despicable, the fact that he took the e-mail in the first place, the fact that he showed it to others which caused it to be published on the internet. But possibly the most despicable part of this horrible episode is that the particular e-mail had the names of the fellow States Members Children contained in it, even when it was published on the internet. What does this say about Deputy Power's feelings to protecting children? What does it say about his integrity and his morals?

Senator Ben Shenton records a personal telephone call between himself and a fellow Senator. Sits on it, and when the time is right, produces it to a Scrutiny Panel to try and nail his fellow Senator giving his fellow Senator no indication that he had recorded the phone-call, nor warning him he will be using it against him at this panel hearing. Integrity, morality?

 Senator Jimmy Perchard attempts to encourage a fellow Senator to kill himself, not only that he also denied doing/saying it. He was caught out and exposed as being a liar. He also allegedly used disgraceful language from that filthy potty mouth of his when suggesting his fellow Senator go "slit his wrists." He also denied using the disgusting language, in the States Chamber, which he subsequently had to admit to. Integrity, morality?

As regular viewers will be aware these three individuals are having another pop at one of the Police Officers who exposed one of Jersey's dirty secrets. The fact that children were abused in State run Institutions for decades by people in authority who STILL have complete impunity.

So for the benefit of Ben Shenton, Sean Power and Jimmy Perchard here it is from the horses mouth.

Incidentally if any of you three have the courage to be interviewed and answer straight questions, like Former DCO Harper and former CPO Graham Power QPM have then let's do it?

Or are you going to prove Mr. Harper right and show us that you truly are cowardly, underhanded and dishonest?

Part one of the this exclusive and in-depth interview with Mr. Harper can be viewed HERE. Part three coming soon.............

The Three Goons.

Former Jersey Deputy Chief Police Officer and Senior Investigating Officer of Jersey’s “Historical” Child Abuse Lenny Harper answers the questions being asked by the ever-growing online Blogging community.

Over the last day or so people have been leaving questions for the former Chief Officer on the internet, and “Team Voice” asked him to make a note of the questions and address them in an in-depth and exclusive interview with us. We are pleased to say he agreed.

The latest cynical attempt to discredit Mr. Harper and his Investigation of decades long Child Abuse in Jersey comes (surprise, surprise) in the form of the Jersey Evening Post (Jersey’s ONLY “news”paper) and three Politicians. The three Politicians come as no surprise either. Indeed I was phoned a few days ago and told that three Politicians were in the JEP asking for an investigation into Mr. Harper’s, and others, relationship with the News Of The World News paper. I was asked “guess who the three are?” I said “Perchard, Power and Shenton?” Naturally I was right, lucky guess, or have these three got form in asking questions about the Abuse Investigation and not about the ABUSE?

Of course we know Perchard and Shenton have got form when it comes to neglecting Child Abuse Victims and as Mr. Harper tells us, all three of them have got form when it comes to undermining The Child Abuse Investigation.

Mr. Harper has labelled Senators Perchard, Shenton and Deputy Power as "The Three Goons". In this first episode he explains why and also goes on to tell us a little more about these individuals and their alleged shenanigans and suggests they are not best placed to be questioning ANYBODY'S leaking of e-mails............and more.

This interview makes part one of a series of three where we go on to discuss Jersey's media involvement, its agenda, its relationship with the Police and Politicians. We put the question straight to the former Detective Chief Officer "have you accepted monies from or leaked anything to the NOTW? We also ask him how he feels about the possible investigation suggested by (to use Mr. Harper's words) "The Three Goons."

Once again, Team Voice is thankful to Mr. Harper for agreeing to answer the questions put to him and allowing us (citizens media) to bring our viewers a service that our "accredited" media don't. We bring you in-depth interviews with the people making the "news" straight from the horses mouth which is in stark contrast to the JEP, and others, who don't even contact them!










  

It's Official. Jersey is a Dictatorship.

Below is the Press Release from the Home Affairs and Education Scrutiny Panel, or "the straw that broke the Camel's back" could be another name for it. The Scrutiny Panel have tendered their resignation

The question is "what took them so long?" The penny has finally dropped. They were there only to legitimise this dictatorship. Scrutiny is a job for the naughty boys and girls who won't tow the party line.

Professor Adrian Lee told us "show me an ineffective Scrutiny and I'll show you a dictatorship."

After this latest resignation of the four Scrutiny Panel members, I believe that leaves 5 people on Scrutiny. That is nothing short of a dictatorship.

How long can this "out of control" illegitimate government survive? 

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel Resignation from Scrutiny Statement

The remaining members of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel have decided to announce their intention to resign from the Scrutiny Panel once the ongoing review of the issues surrounding the financial management of Operation Rectangle has been completed.

The members fully support the action taken by Deputy Tadier in announcing his immediate resignation in the States following the debate on P.84/2011 on the Composition of the Prison Board of Visitors. We wish to make it quite clear that we feel strongly about the Minister’s conduct in this debate, which was the culmination of two years of unreasonable delay and stonewalling. It appears to us that the never-ending saga of the wait for legal advice has shrouded the failure on the part of the Minister to examine the case for change brought forward in our review. This has been symptomatic of an attitude towards Scrutiny which borders on disrespect, which is not confined to this Minister. Hence we are calling for a long hard look at the role of Scrutiny in general and the value that should be placed on its work.

We believe that the proposal laid before the States in P.84/2011 was straightforward and quite clear; consequently we are surprised at claims by some members after the debate that our recommendation regarding the Jurats was confusing. Our proposal sought to open up the Board to lay people whilst retaining the possibility for a limited number of Jurats to remain on the Board. This mirrors the model of the Independent Monitoring Boards in the United Kingdom and reflects modern best practice. Given the representations made on behalf of the Jurats the Panel attempted to combine the best of the current and proposed Board.

The Minister in his response to our original review (presented to the States in August 2009) agreed with our recommendation that the role of the Prison Board of Visitors should be reviewed yet has delayed taking any action on this on the basis of the need to seek legal opinion on the single issue of the retention of the Jurats on the Board.

The Panel Chairman made several requests to the Minister seeking progress on this matter, through Oral and Written Questions1 in the States and through both formal and informal approaches over this period from the Panel.

Given the inordinate delays that were occurring in receiving the Minister's response to the Sub Panel's recommendations, it was suggested to him several times that if the compromise solution was unworkable, then the Sub Panel would consider dropping it and instead present the Assembly with a choice between an entirely Independent Lay Panel and the current Board. The report of the proposition also invited the Minister to bring amendments, if he thought that the proposition was not viable.

1 Oral question 22nd June 2010; Written Question 5859 30th November 2010; Chairman’s letter to Minister dated 1st December 2010.

In the absence of any clear answer the main Panel decided to move an amendment which would bring matters to a head. The Panel never saw the advice obtained by the Minister but, his comments presented to the States on 11th July 2011 (two days before the debate) implied support for the proposition, based on legal advice.

It then appears that the Minister obtained further legal advice which led to the quite extraordinary situation of the Minister, during the course of the debate, calling on the Solicitor General to lay this advice before the Assembly. The Minister then drew the conclusion that this advice allowed him to propose the retention of the Prison Board of Visitors.

Ironically, follow up questioning of the Solicitor General suggested that the approaches of both the Sub Panel and the Minister could be supported by the legal advice. It seems to us that the Minister was opposed to our proposition either way, and simply used the legal advice to back his position, even when the legal advice proved to be more balanced.

It became clear in the debate that the Jurats were not supportive of the recommendation brought forward by the Sub Panel for a mixed Board of Visitors. The Minister appears to have allowed himself to give the Jurats a veto on this issue and to ignore the evidence presented in our report that the current system is not an appropriate or proper means of monitoring the state of the prison.

We believe that the implications of the Minister’s stance warrant our stated intention to resign once the current Scrutiny on the Operation Rectangle financial report is concluded.

This unfortunate episode has come on the heels of the Minister’s attempt to derail this latest Scrutiny review by removing two members from the Sub Panel on the grounds that they had already expressed trenchant views on matters relating to the subject under review. In our view, the Minister has misinterpreted the repeated search by these members for answers to questions on a significant issue as a pre-determined bias. It is vital that members are free to persist with probing lines of questioning when they believe that the responses they have received have been unsatisfactory.

We believe that Scrutiny members are fully capable of leaving aside preconceptions and looking at evidence in an objective fashion when they commit to a Scrutiny Review. Members approach issues in Scrutiny with a range of views gathered from various sources, whether from the media, personal contacts or their own research. It would be impossible to find members without previous knowledge and views on issues under review. The process of gathering evidence through public enquiries and submissions is transparent. In addition, Panel membership imposes its own checks and balances and conclusions can be tested and challenged. This is, of course, the approach followed within Select Committees at Westminster. We believe this fact speaks for itself.

Our examination of the evidence to date for this latest Scrutiny has already revealed significant questions about the way the review of financial management was carried out and we are determined to pursue the matter to the end. This is an example of the way we believe Scrutiny should operate - responding to concerns from members of the public, asking awkward and challenging questions, seeking to penetrate beneath the status quo and laying out the evidence before coming to considered conclusions.

The Panel is very disappointed that this position has arisen whereby we feel that we must tender our resignation as a Panel. There have been good examples of Scrutiny done in co-operation with the Minister. However, these recent episodes demonstrate that Ministers have yet to face up to the fact that Scrutiny has, at times, to be uncomfortable and challenging.

We call on members of the States to reflect seriously on the role Scrutiny is playing at present and how it can be better supported. (end)

The Role of Jersey’s “accredited” Media.

For those who have been following this series of the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Sub Panel Hearings. We are sorry to say, we are unable to bring you any video footage of the evidence given by BDO/Alto or Mike Kellett as they have both refused us permission to film.

So in the absence of balance we bring you an edited version of the evidence given by member of the public and fellow Blogger Rico Sorda. In this video we look at the role played by Jersey’s mainstream media (MSM) in the expenses “scandal” of Operation Rectangle.

Steven Austin Vautier, who also refused us permission to film his evidence, BDO/Alto and Mike Kellett have all said that the BDO/Alto Report was NOT an investigation of “Lenny Harper.”  It was an audit of the expenditure concerning “Operation Rectangle.” ALL Mr. Harper’s expenditure was signed off, he is NOT solely responsible. By Law, the Accounting Officer Steven Austin Vautier is at least part responsible if not entirely.

So how did an audit review turn into a full-scale attack and slag-fest against Lenny Harper? Well, that was Jersey’s Media, in particular the AWARD WINNING and ENTIRELY ACCURATE CTV along with the JEP.

Both “news” outlets have trashed Lenny Harper’s name and it is believed by many that they have totally misrepresented the BDO/Alto audit review entirely.

But let’s just take a look at the “award winning” CTV. Regular viewers will be aware that CTV hosted Mick Gradwell with his unprecedented attack on a fellow Officer and the Child Abuse Investigation in a series of “interviews.”

Now with all the people giving evidence to this Scrutiny Panel there are conflicting views and not much that people agree on. One area there does seem to be some unity is that nobody, to the best of our knowledge, has condoned the actions of Mick Gradwell and CTV. David Warcup has distanced himself from this. Ian Le Marquand has been critical and distanced himself from this and so have others.

More questions have come to light, as you’ll see in Rico Sorda’s evidence, concerning the CTV Mick Gradwell double act. Steven Austin Vautier, didn’t say as much, but left a number of us with the impression that he was less than happy with the way the JEP Reported on the BDO/Alto Report also.

Whether BDO/Alto intended it, or not, their review has been used to trash a Child Abuse Investigation, or at least it’s Senior Investigating Officer.

Rico Sorda is a member of the public and should never have to be giving evidence to this Scrutiny Panel. If our media were reporting fairly and objectively then there would probably never have been a need for this Scrutiny Panel to be set up in the first place. Which incidentally brings up another area where there is unity. Just about all who have given evidence have agreed that if Lenny Harper had of been interviewed by BDO/Alto then there would probably be no need for this Scrutiny Panel.

There are those of us with the belief that not only should CTV hand their award back but they should be called to give evidence to this Scrutiny Panel. Listen carefully to the dates and questions Mr. Sorda raises in his evidence. On the 1^st and 3^rd of September 2009 the CTV Reporter is quoting stuff that later appeared in the BDO/Alto Report.

The BDO/Alto Report wasn’t released until May 2010 and BDO/Alto didn’t send the engagement letter to Home Affairs until September the 29^th 2009.

Credit must go to Rico Sorda for putting his neck on the line. It takes courage and integrity to speak up over here in Jersey. He/we do this knowing that if/when things go t*ts up and we unwittingly fall foul of Data Protection, Libel or Defamation Laws we cannot get a fair trial in Jersey's Politicised judicial system.


Furthermore should this Committee of Enquiry ever get off the ground then parts of its Terms Of Reference must be the role played by Jersey's "accredited" media during and after the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry.


  

The Skull, The Evidence and the media.

With the role of the media and its relationship with governments being in the spotlight thanks to the News of the World scandal. We once more bring you Jersey's "finest" journalists.


For those who have been following this series of former DCO Harper giving evidence to the Scrutiny Sub Panel, the video below is what happened at the end of Mr. Harper giving evidence to the Scrutiny Home Affairs and Education Sub Panel.

Mr. Harper agreed to stay on the line to answer questions from "journalists" and Bloggers and we were all allowed one question each. This is because the head of the Scrutiny Chairman's panel, Senator Sarah Ferguson, was present at the meeting (don't know why) and had complained about the cost of keeping Mr. Harper on the line which probably worked out at about £2.50.

As for the role of the island's media, one has to question their motives. At this hearing were members of the public, among those members of the public, were victims/survivors of Child Abuse. A request was made at the beginning of this hearing and assurances given that members of the public would not be filmed by the media and reproduced below, is the "official" transcript of that.

Male Speaker:

"Could I just say before you start I do not think members of the public want to be filmed by the media.  

Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Are you going to focus on us?  Please, thank you."

The "thank you" from the panel Chairman was a consequence of receiving visual assurances from the media that they agreed with this request. The request was made, not least, because one of the members of public present, who is also an Abuse Survivor, is the target of threatening and intimidatory phone calls, and has even had a stranger come to their door to, among other things, threaten him/her not to reveal the name of their Abuser. This Survivor has subsequently received more threats since this hearing.

This begs the question, did our local media turn up to this meeting to intimidate members of the public and Abuse Victims/Survivors? The media very rarely turn up to Scrutiny Panel Hearings and when they do they very rarely stay for the duration.

This particular Hearing attracted just about ALL of the local media, the JEP, BBC and CTV that we are aware of. Yet not one of them wanted to ask a single question of the man giving evidence Mr. Harper. Not one of them had contacted him to ask for an exclusive or any kind of scoop. Could this be because they already know, or have been told, what they are going to write, publish or broadcast regardless of what Mr. Harper has to say?

This scenario has some merit because a couple of days later the good old JEP, who can't seem to mention Mr. Harper's name without mentioning the "Coconut" mentioned Mr. Harper's name and the Coconut. But if you, the viewer, listen to Mr. Harper's evidence (which the JEP clearly didn't) then you will hear him say that there is no scientific data to show it is coconut. There is however scientific "evidence" to show that this item contained 1.6% collagen which is only found in mammals. Not one of the "accredited" media had a single question to ask about the "fresh and fleshed" bones that had been burnt before burial. After one and a half hours of Mr. Harper giving evidence the "professional, paid, accredited "journalists" could not think of a single question to ask him?

While Mr. Harper was discussing the find of the skull fragment, the "fresh and fleshed" bones when burnt and other finds at HDLG Team Voice noticed that not one of the local "journalists" were taking any notes of what Mr. Harper was telling us.

Team Voice asked Mr. Harper if he believed it would make a blind bit of difference as to what he had to say because the "accredited" media were going to report their own version regardless. Mr. Harper was right in assuming the "accredited" media would give out their version, contrary to the "facts" and "evidence."

So just what is the role of Jersey's mainstream media? How comfortable and cosy is their relationship with the ruling elite? Are they looking to get to the truth? Do they want the public to be informed of the "facts?" Do they intentionally intimidate Abuse Victims/Survivors and members of the public? Are they no more than a propaganda machine for the ruling elite?

   

Lenny Harper Scrutiny Evidence 2

Part two of this series begins with Deputy Daniel Wimberley reading out, to the former Deputy Police Chief and Senior Investigating Officer Mr. Lenny Harper, the Terms of Reference that BDO/Alto were working to while investigating the former DCO's expenditure during the "Historical" Child Abuse Investigation. This was necessary because, not only did Mr. Harper not know the TOR's but he never even knew about BDO/Alto's Investigation until it was completed and he read about it on the internet!

Mr. Harper finds it "Absolutely Bizarre" that BDO/Alto would not contact him during their Investigation, or even contact him with a "Scott Letter." He (Mr. Harper) goes on to explain that he and Former Police Chief Graham Power QPM were "pleading" for a budget to work to from day one  but were consistently told money is not an issue, spend whatever is necessary. Mr. Harper has provided The Scrutiny Panel  with an e-mail from former Chief Executive Officer Bill Ogley to Mr. Harper where Mr. Ogley "slapped down" Mr. Harper for even mentioning cost during the Investigation.

We must remember this is an ongoing Review. BDO/Alto and others are yet to give their evidence. We hope to bring you that evidence as we have Mr. Harper's. We have put in a request to film ALL of the Hearings and are quite sure BDO/Alto will want to be as open and transparent as Mr. Harper and will grant us permission to film as Mr. Harper has.

Part one of this series can be viewed HERE

Lenny Harper Scrutiny Evidence 1

Yesterday, Monday 4th July 2011, Former Senior Investigating Officer of "Operation Rectangle" (Jersey's Child Abuse Investigation) Lenny Harper, for the very first time, gave evidence, concerning his expenditure,  to a Scrutiny Sub Panel Chaired by St Helier Deputy Trevor Pitman.

The hearing, which lasted a little over an hour and a half, was extremely informative, and in parts, very revealing. There was standing room only and probably the highest attendance ever at a Scrutiny Panel Hearing............. bar none.

Our State Controlled Media have been offering their version of yesterday's Hearing with their trademark soundbites in the hope that the general public will buy into the snippets they have been fed.

In typical fashion Mr. Harper had no objection to ANYBODY filming his testimony, so that's exactly what we did, and offer our viewers, not our version of events, but Mr. Harpers very own words which he gave under oath.

We must point out that there are counter arguments to Mr. Harper's testimony and this is an on-going Review. Team Voice have requested to film all the Hearings so if everybody giving evidence are as "open" as Mr. Harper, and allow us to film, then we shall bring you the counter arguments also.

Mr. Harper in his own words. (part 1 of approx. 3 or 4)

The Full Story.

Today the former Senior Investigating Officer of the Historic Child Abuse investigation Lenny Harper gave evidence to a Scrutiny Sub Panel concerning his expenditure on the enquiry.

Jersey's State Media have already been churning out their version of today's events, and once more, have fallen woefully short of "the full story."

Citizens Media will be posting video tomorrow of this Hearing where you, the viewer, will be able to hear straight from the the horses mouth, so to speak, as Mr. Harper gives his evidence under oath.

His evidence includes "leaks" from Senior Police Officers. "Leaks" from Senior Politicians, doctored e-mails to Child Abuse Denying Journalists. The complete contradictions of Home Affairs Minister Senator Ian Le Marquand and much, much, more that you are unlikely to see or hear from the State Media.

Part one of this series of video postings should be up by lunchtime tomorrow.

Modern day Politician or Fraudster?

Yesterday in the States, our elected "representatives", were asked to vote on the request from "Team Voice" to film the historic States Sitting this coming Thursday when it is the final sitting of our present Lieutenant Governor Sir Andrew Ridgeway.

The so called "accredited" media as in BBC Jersey and the "AWARD WINNING" Channel Television have both been granted permission to film by our States Members, but the vote for "Team Voice" to film was, as predicted, lost with 17 votes in favour and 22 against.

Although it was predicted the vote would be lost, who would have thought, that the Deputy Chief Minister, fellow Blogger, Twitterer, Facebook and Youtube user Senator Phillip Ozouf would have been one of those voting AGAINST?


To further demonstrate the knee jerk daft reactions concerning the majority of States members, more so Senator Ozouf. Had Team voice been allowed to film, all they could have done, was take a bit of film footage of the sitting and turned the camera off before the debate started, as far as we are aware. What's the worse that could have happened? But instead, by refusing us permission, the likes of Senator Ozouf get flushed out.


How can he be taken seriously? Why should we Believe a word he says? How can he claim to support "new media" and vote against new media switching a camera on alongside the "Accredited" media?


In the interest of balance Team Voice have asked Senator Ozouf for an interview, or comment.............He has declined.


Below is the Senator's own video recording from his own blogsite of how he supports "new media" which in the opinion of Team Voice exposes him as saying one thing while doing and voting another.

Jersey's Anthem.

On the Matthew Price show this morning (BBC Radio Jersey) Matthew was encouraging listeners to get in contact with the show to offer their suggestions of what should be "The Jersey Anthem."

Accordingly I sent in an e-mail (below) with my suggestion, but for some reason, Matthew chose not to read it out or play the song that I had suggested.

I have sent Matthew a further e-mail accepting there could be a perfectly legitimate reason as to why the song or e-mail were not aired and asked him for the reason(s) so as they could be considered for publication on here as a right of reply..........he's not replied yet but hopefully will.

This is just a short posting that, in my opinion, shouldn't even be necessary. But I believe our Children deserve a voice and the subject of Child Abuse should be tackled head on.

If the BBC, or any mainstream media, aren't going to do it, then what chance have our children got?

from voiceforchildren voiceforchildrenvoiceforchildren@googlemail.com to bbc radio jersey date Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 8:56 AM subject Anthem mailed-by googlemail.com

hide details 8:56 AM (2 hours ago)

Matthew.

I believe the Jersey Anthem should be the song recorded by Martina McBride "Concrete Angel."

It tells the story of a young girl who was Abused for years while others either turned a blind eye or covered it up. The young girl finished up in a grave at the age of, I believe, 10 years old.

If this was the Jersey Anthem it would/could remind those who have, or might, turn a blind eye or cover up Child Abuse that they too could be responsible for killing a child and could encourage them to do the right thing by our children.

VFC.

--
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/

http://voiceforjersey.blogspot.com/

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/

Twitter https://twitter.com/#!/TheVoiceJersey

Deputy Trevor Pitman (Media)

Member of Jersey's Parliament (The States of Jersey) Deputy Trevor Pitman, a fellow BLOGGER speaks to Citizens Media about Jersey's mainstream media and Blogging.

The outspoken Deputy refuses to be intimidated by the Culture of Fear" that is felt by a growing number of the Jersey public and STATES MEMBERS.

In this interview he discusses the role played by our mainstream media, the lack of diversity, the lack of any "investigative" journalism, the need for Citizens Media and the power of the media in Jersey..............and much more!

Could, probably the worst Child Abuse cover up in History, have happened without the help of Jersey's mainstream media?

Serious Complaint (3)

Readers will note that the correspondence below has been sent to all States Members and just as importantly to the islands mainstream media. The correspondence could be viewed as further evidence of a cover-up, so will our States Members be asking any questions, and will our mainstream media even report it let alone "investigate" any of it?

                                                                                                                 

from	Bob Hill B.Hill@gov.je
to		"All States Members (including ex officio members)"
cc		Ben Queree , "dsimon@jerseyeveningpost.com" , Channel 103 , Channel TV , JEP Editorial , JEP Newsdesk , BBC Radio Jersey & Spotlight TV , "Spotlight (Spotlight)"
date		Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:38 PM
subject		Complaint relating to Removal of Part (d)
mailed-by		gov.je

Dear Colleagues,

Members will recall that last Tuesday 7th June during question time I asked an Oral Question of Senator Ozouf in relation to my complaint against a senior officer. On four occasions Senator Ozouf stated that the Investigator had found no substance to my complaint. The question arose from the removal of part (d) of the Napier Terms of Reference. My attached letter of complaint to Senator Le Sueur will set the scene, also attached is Senator Ozouf's letter in which he has summarised the Investigator's findings. The third letter is from Mr Power in which he states that he regarded the failure to be informed of the changed Terms of Reference as an act of deception.

As one can see from my allegations only a small number of people had to be interviewed. The key people being myself, Senator Le Sueur, Mr Power and most certainly Mr Napier and the Officer, Mr Richardson. One should  note that the cost of the investigation was a little over £6000. The report has apparently only been seen by Senator Ozouf whose letter claims to be a summary of the Investigator's response to each of the allegations

I spent around two hours with the investigator and provided the key documents including a copy of an email from Mr Napier in relation to his discussion with Mr Richardson about the Terms of Reference. Mr Napier states " I can confirm that I did not feel constrained in any way by its removal, although I do recollect a comment I made, to the effect that I did not want to participate in setting my own Terms of Reference. In other words, I remember expressing the view that the decision to change the terms was not one which I should personally make or participate in, though I had no objection to the amendment being made by those who were instructing me and I was entirely happy working with the amended terms"

When one reads Mr Napier's comments it is difficult to understand how anyone can come to the conclusion that part (d) was not removed particularly as it does not appear in the Final Napier Report. It is also difficult to understand how anyone can form any contrary view when two of the key witnesses, Mr Napier and Mr Power were never interviewed. (That fact was confirmed by Senator Ozouf during question time). I don't know whether Senator Le Sueur was interviewed but given that part (d) was removed or not proceeded with (by a mutual understanding!!!!) the document he was given to sign was not an accurate one and the subsequent presentation of R39/2010 was only partly accurate because the Terms of Reference had been amended. It is now claimed that the absence of part (d) was an administrative error, it will be for Members to come to their own conclusions however Senator Ozouf states that allegations 6 & 7 were proven. Therefore his statement to Members that the Investigator had found no substance to my complaint is incorrect and should be rectified.

In Senator Ozouf's letter it is claimed that Mr Richardson did not "instruct" Mr Napier to remove part (d) but he concluded that a mutual understanding developed between Mr Richardson and Mr Napier not to proceed with part(d) as it was not relevant. Such a claim is nonsense. The fact is as a result of that " mutual understanding " part (d) was removed as stated by Mr Napier  this is substantiated by its absence, without any explanation in the Final Report. Whatever excuses are offered it cannot be disputed that Part (d) does not appear in the Terms of Reference in the Napier Final Report. It cannot be disputed that even if there was a "mutual understanding between Mr Napier and Mr Richardson not proceed with Part (d) It was not within the gift of Mr Richardson to take such action without consulting myself and Senator Le Sueur. If we had agreed then it was imperative that Mr Power and all other witnesses were notified that as a result of a "mutual understanding with Mr Richardson, Mr Napier was not proceeding with part (d). Also both myself and Senator Le Sueur should have been informed as per our agreement.

I met the Investigator and was of the view that he was experienced and quickly grasped the situation. I do not believe that he was so incompetent to form the views attributed to him particularly as he did not interview Mr Napier  but had thewritten account of the removal of part(d).

I believe that the removal of part (d) was to deflect Mr Napier away from digging too deep. however his findings must have disappointed certain people because he found that those involved with the former Police Chief Officer'ssuspension had acted untoward. If our Government is to have any credibility it must be transparent and its Ministers and all its Officers must act with propriety without fear or favour. The evidence to hand proves there was a conspiracy to remove Mr Power. Those responsible have been shown to have acted in an untoward manner probably believing that they were either above reproach or no one would bother to scrutinise and if anyone did, there would be Ministers and Civil Servants who would make life difficult for those who tried to expose the truth. They have been proven to be wrong.

Regards

Deputy  F. J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.,

Deputy of St Martin.

Catel Cottage,

Rue du Catel,

Trinity, JE35HA,

22^nd February 2011.

Senator T Le Sueur,

Chief Minister,

Cyril Le Marquand House,

St Helier.

Dear Chief Minister,

 Complaint against Mr John Richardson

On 12^th November 2008 the former Chief Police Officer was suspended from duty. It was an unprecedented and controversial act which was to bring an abrupt end to a highly distinguished police career. The act not only led to well over a hundred questions being asked at States Sittings but also very expensive Court, Judicial Hearings and Reviews which has cost the tax payer in excess of a million pounds.

From answers to questions and the publication of Mr Powers Affidavit it is apparent that the Chief Executive played a leading role in the pre and post suspension process which received considerable publicity. The Affidavit contained a number of allegations regarding the conduct of senior civil servants and States Members which led to suspicion of cover ups and conspiracies. Therefore one would assume that the Deputy Chief Executive would have been cognisant of that fact.

Following increasing concerns regarding the circumstances surrounding the Police Chief’s suspension, on 1^st February 2010 I lodged P9/2010 which called for a Committee of Inquiry to publicly review the suspension. Just prior to the debate on 24^th February, the Council of Ministers, (COM) presented Comments to my proposition. The Comments called for a rejection of my proposals in favour of a Commissioner to conduct a review which would be in private.

Whilst my proposition called for approval of a Committee of Inquiry there were no terms of reference because it was envisaged the Committee would have drafted their own in line with the proposals contained in my proposition.

The two main thrusts to the COM’s proposal were that it would be simpler and quicker, and there were definite Terms of Reference. What is particularly relevant was part (d) which was to “Review all information relating to the original suspension procedure including relevant sections of the published Affidavit from the suspended Chief Officer of Police.”  The Comments also stated that the Chief Minister would inform Members of the person appointed to undertake the task.

You will recall that the States rejected my proposal in favour of the COM’s; you will also recall that you asked if I would to assist you in the selection of the Commissioner. I informed you and other Members that I did not want to have any part in your Review because the expert would be reporting back to you and your department. In simple words I did not trust you or those around you to conduct a review that would be open and transparent.

When interviewed by the JEP after the debate I said the suspension pointed to a conspiracy and it needed to be fully investigated. I also was reported to have said “I am just disappointed, there will be a cosy in-house inquiry with leading players saying what they want. They will be under no obligation to speak to the expert.”

The JEP in its edition on 25^th February chose to report on its front page with the headline “They want it swept under the carpet”

Following the JEP report Senator Shenton lodged a formal complaint to PPC which you supported; Senator Shenton alleged that my comments breached Standing Orders.

Although the allegation was lodged on 25^th February, on 1^st March you emailed me inviting me to re-consider my decision regarding the selection process. You did not say why you wanted me to re-consider but I presume it was to give some credibility to the review.

For convenience the exchange of emails is attached as appendix 1. You will note that I stated that I would be willing to assist but I still had reservations as your expert would be reporting back to you and your department and those reservations remain. However I would be willing to assist provided that I could have the same oversight as you in the selection process, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that were received prior to the publication of the Final Report. Again in simple words I thought that if I had oversight of the review I could ensure that it was open and transparent.

Later that day you replied by email agreeing to my request, John Richardson was copied in to the email. That assurance was quite explicit and I had every reason to believe that I would be party to all issues relating to the review. I was also putting my trust in both you and Mr. Richardson that the review would conducted in an open and transparent way.

During March with you, me and John Richardson we eventually selected Brian Napier, QC. On 25^th March 2010 ⁱⁿ your office we met Mr. Napier and we agreed the Terms of Reference which were the same as in the COM Comments P9/2010 which included part (d). Mr. Napier said he could get his review underway by early April. The appointment was made known to the media and a report appeared in the JEP the next day which included a photograph of Mr. Napier and the Terms of Reference which included part (d).  As per your commitment to States Members I assumed that arrangements would be quickly put in place for the appointment to be circulated to them. There was no reason why there should have been any delay in submitting details however they were not presented until 14^th April via R39/2010.

At no time from the 25^th of March was I ever party to any decisions or have sight of any of the reports that emanated from the Review until you gave me a copy of the Final Report on 17^th September. This was in complete breach of our agreement.

I understand that on 25^th February Mr. Power wrote to Mr. Richardson saying he had heard there would be some form of review of his suspension and wanted further information.

On 29^th March Mr. Richardson replied asking whether Mr. Power would assist in the Review and attached the Terms of Reference which included the original part (d). On 31^st March Mr. Power replied stating that he was willing to assist but before doing so he required certain assurances. Despite answers given by you to questions on this matter, the letter most certainly did not categorically state that Mr. Power was going to assist in the Review. Mr. Power did not give consent until his letter of 23^rd April.

On 8^th and 9^th April Mr. Napier visited the Island and held discussions with Mr. Richardson. As a result of answers given by you in the States it is apparent that both men discussed the Terms of Reference on 9^th April although Mr. Napier apparently cannot remember the exact day. From the events that followed it really does not matter which of the two days they discussed the Terms but it is evident that part (d) was removed from the Terms and part(d) was replaced by part (e). From questions asked it is claimed that the decision to remove part (d) was because Mr. Power had agreed to take part in the review. That is incorrect because consent was not given until 23^rd April.

It is also now evident that Mr. Napier was instructed to remove part (d) by Mr. Richardson. As he said in a later email, it was not for him to participate in the setting of his own terms of reference, as it did not seem appropriate. At no time was I informed of the removal. Neither were States Members nor Mr. Power who was the belief that part (d) was still included when he was later interviewed by Mr. Napier.   It should be noted that when Mr. Richardson wrote to Mr. Power on 16^th and 21^st April he mentions the Terms of Reference but does state that part (d) had been removed. The meeting between Mr. Power and Mr. Napier took place in Edinburgh on 13^th May 2010.   It is now apparent that as a consequence of Mr. Richardson’s actions both parties were unknowingly in possession of different terms of reference for that meeting.   Leaving aside whatever motives may have been behind Mr. Richardson’s actions, no competent senior public servant should have allowed this situation to arise in a high profile enquiry funded and authorized by the States.

No matter whatever arrangement Mr. Richardson and Mr. Napier came to, it was not within the gift or remit for Mr. Richardson to remove any part of the Terms of Reference without reference to either of us or indeed States Members. Given the justified concerns about cover ups and conspiracies, Mr. Richardson displayed appalling naivety, lack of judgment or the removal was intended to deceive. By removing part (d) Mr. Richardson had shifted the agenda in such a way as to ensure that Mr. Napier would not be required to delve too deeply into the actions of his superior officer or indeed other senior personnel.

Following his meeting with Mr. Napier and the removal of part (d) Mr. Richardson made arrangements for Karen Pallot via an email dated 9^th April at 1515 hours to submit details of Mr. Napier’s appointment, CV and Terms of Reference to the COM. It should be noted that although part (d) had been removed that fact was not made known in the correspondence to the COM. Why was part (d) still shown in the Terms of Reference when it had been removed? I submit it was not an error.

Later that day at 1524 hours the Greffier emailed Mr. Richardson informing him that it was unnecessary for the COM to be consulted as the matter was a Ministerial Decision. I am not aware whether the COM formerly considered the email and contents but it is apparent that they were asked to consider a document that was not factual.

It is apparent that you unwittingly signed the Ministerial decision on 13^th April without checking to see that what you were signing was correct. However what you signed was not factual because part (d) had been removed so either you were told and have misled the States or you signed the documents without being told that part (d) had been removed.

It will be for you to decide, but as far as I am concerned your approval led to R39/2010 being presented to the States which was not factual. However it is now known that when the documents were submitted to the Greffier for printing the second page of the Terms of Reference which contained part (d) was not included. That is why it does not appear in R39/2010. The absence is attributed to an administrative error. Again it seems to be a convenient coincidence which was plausible and accepted by a number of people who were of the belief that Mr. Napier was reviewing part (d)

Although part (d) was omitted from R39/2010 I was of the belief that it was still part of the Terms of Reference, but following a sequence of events last July I had reason to doubt whether Mr. Napier was reviewing part (d). You will recall that we then had a number of email exchanges in which I sought assurances that Mr. Napier had reviewed part (d). This was very important because Mr. Napier had not completed his report and it would not have been too late to interview witnesses identified in Mr. Power’s Affidavit. However I never received a satisfactory reply and had to wait until I received the Final Report because I was denied the right to see any parts of Mr. Napier’s documentations.

On 17^th September you gave me an embargoed copy of the Final Napier Report. It became evident that part (d) had been removed, yet there is no explanation in the Report and since then I have received a number evasive answers to my many questions seeking an explanation.

As you know along with other States Members I have been trying to establish why part (d) was removed because in my opinion it should never been removed. I note that Mr. Napier is of the belief (although qualified) that had the terms of reference remained unchanged it would have made no difference to the contents of his report. I do not subscribe to that view because neither he nor Mr Richardson ever informed Mr Power that part (d) had been withdrawn.

Mr Power was of the belief that Mr Napier was going to interview the people named in his Affidavit because had they been interviewed it would have become apparent that steps were being taken to suspend him without his Minister’s knowledge.

Mr Richardson had no right to interfere with the Terms of Reference. He was aware of my role and there can be no excuses for interfering with the Terms without reference to me or the Chief Minister. I believe his actions are akin to perverting the course of justice.

Also having instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) Mr Richardson actions there after were untoward. He failed to inform you, and Mr Power. He also submitted documents to the COM and yourself which included the reference to part (d) being part of the Terms of Reference when it is a fact that they had been removed.

I therefore make to following complaint against Mr Richardson.

1. He instructed Mr Napier to remove part (d) without discussing the matter with you or me.
2. He failed to inform you or me of the decision
3. He failed to inform Mr Power of the decision.
4. On 9^th April 2010 he submitted documentation to the Council of Ministers which included part (d) of the Terms of Reference when part (d) had been removed.
5. On 13^th April he submitted documentation to you which included part (d) of the Terms of Reference when he knew that part (d) had been removed.
6. On 13^th April whilst responsible for the submission of the Mr Napier’s appointment, CV and Terms of Reference to the Greffier for publication, the second page containing part (d) and part (e) was not included in the submission
7. Following the presentation of R39/2010 on 14^th he failed to correct the document so that the full Terms of Reference were accurately reported.

I am aware that it may be claimed that the removal of part (d) of the terms of reference may not have had significant consequences for the Napier enquiry. I would regard such a view as speculation intended to distract attention from the actual basis of my complaint. Nobody can say for sure what the consequences were. However, for my own part, had part (d) been within Mr Napier’s remit then I think it unlikely that myself and others would have accepted his report in the form it was finally presented.   I would have drawn attention to the failure to deal with some of the events set out in the affidavit and may have asked for more work to be done.  Whatever views any of us may have of the eventual consequences, the point remains that the intention of the Napier enquiry was to address and resolve a long-running controversy. The actions of the Deputy Chief Executive have undermined confidence in the outcome of the enquiry and created a situation in which the controversy continues.   This is not an acceptable performance from such a senior public servant.

As both you and the Chief Executive are clearly conflicted neither of you will be able to deal my with my complaint, therefore it will have it be forwarded to someone not conflicted, however I ask that the matter be dealt with in an expeditious manner and that a suitably independent person or organisation be appointed to conduct an investigation and prepare a report.

Yours sincerely,

Deputy F.J. (Bob) Hill, BEM.

Deputy of St Martin.

Appendix 1.

From: Terry Le Sueur Sent: 01 March 2010 18:23 To: Bob Hill Cc: John Richardson (CMD) Subject: RE: Power enquiry

Dear Bob,

Thanks for this.    I am happy that you and I should have the same oversight in the selection, although technically the person to make the decision has to be the Chief Minister.     However I would not want to appoint anybody with whom you were not comfortable.      Fortunately we have a wide choice and I hope we can agree a name quite quickly, since I would like this work to commence a.s.a.p.       I gather you could be available at lunchtime tomorrow, and would be happy if you could meet me (and John Richardson) at my office at 1.00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. 

I also confirm that I am happy for you to be involved with me in reviewing the ongoing work of the commissioner, the reporting mechanism and the reports themselves, including the Final Report to be presented to the States.   

I look forward to hearing your comments tomorrow lunchtime.

Terrry.

---

From: Bob Hill Sent: 01 March 2010 12:01 To: Terry Le Sueur Subject: FW: Power enquiry

Good Morning Terry,

Thank you for your email. You will recall that I had expressed my concern as to the transparency and effectivness of your proposal  because your Expert would be reporting back to you and your Department. Those concerns remain, however I am willing to assist in the selection process once it is known who has responded to your advertisement and that I can have the same oversight as you in the selection, the review process undertaken by the selected person, the reporting mechanism and reports that are received prior to the publication of the Final Report.

Regards

Bob.

-----Original Message----- From: Terry Le Sueur Sent: 01 March 2010 08:46 To: Bob Hill Subject: Power enquiry

Dear Bob,

Both before and during last week's debate you indicated that you did not wish to participate in the selection process of the independent Commissioner.       I am writing again to see if, following the outcome of that debate, you might have reconsidered your position.      I aim to be making that selection this week so that the work can start promptly.

Please let me know your view.

Terry. (END)


The cover-up continues...................to be exposed!............BY BLOGGERS!